Mormon Myths

[Aristotle]

Other Possible False Member Teachings

1. Those born into the Church are better than those who are not.

2. You shouldn't marry someone who was not born in the Church.

3. Member children should never play with non-member children.

4. All non-members are not to be trusted.

5. People who live in the "other" area of town are not good people.

6. Those who have committed serious sins or crimes, even though repented of, can never be as good as those who never committed such sins.

7. Some sins are so serious that you should not forgive yourself for them even after you have sincerely repented.

8. Sisters rate their worth by the leadership positions and income level of their spouse.

9. "I am better than you because I am married."

10. "All of my church experiences should reinforce my testimony."

11. If you live the gospel, you will not experience conflict in relationships.

(re: Stress Reduction For Mormons, Dr. John C. Turpin)

[LionHeart]

A while back, I read a couple of books that told about the events leading up to Joseph Smith's martyrdom. It's been a while so the details are a little vague, but it seems like he did send for the Nauvoo Legion for protection, however, the man leading it was disgruntled with him at the time and didn't come. I also vaguely remember that he wasn't in the jail as a prisoner but at his own request for protection from the mob. One of these books also said that he did know that he wouldn't leave that jail alive.

[Aristotle]

Edited by Aristotle

[Amphiblitz]

I still think the story is given artistic licence, and I take back my comment about it being a myth. Sorry if I offended anyone.

Certainly the teller of the story at any given time will tend to focus more or less on various facets to the story, and that could be for artistic license or because of what they choose to emphasize. So, I guess I will say that I agree with your comment. :)

No offense here, either. You're alright. Perhaps a little unorthodox, but then that's your name. jk

[Guest Syble]

Fair enough, if you are talking about his arrest.

I was thinking more about the fact that he had defended himself with a gun, while a lamb does not defend itself at all.

Personally, if I was LDS, I also would not be concerned with JS having a gun, because he wouldn't be the first Prophet to wield a weapon. He could still be called a Martyr.

Perhaps the myth is not that he was like a lamb, but in the artwork depicting his death, and the traditional story that we are told that leaves out his self defense?

Maybe its not myth, but just artistic license.

He didn't say he was a lamb at the slauter, but rather when leaving and surrending peacefully at his home, he stated he was going then like a lamb ( to ) the slauter. Do you see the difference?

It was to indicate his foreknowledge that he was going to be killed and to show he had surrendered without a fight to go to his eventual, but sure death.

Once at the slauterhouse, he saw a need to defend his brother and friends, not just himself. Think about that.

I don't find things like these post showing much intelligence, just fault finding at its worst and most inefficient.

[Guest Unorthodox]

He didn't say he was a lamb at the slauter, but rather when leaving and surrending peacefully at his home, he stated he was going then like a lamb ( to ) the slauter. Do you see the difference?

Not sure what words I used...someone else here quoted Joseph Smith...

It was to indicate his foreknowledge that he was going to be killed and to show he had surrendered without a fight to go to his eventual, but sure death.

Once at the slauterhouse, he saw a need to defend his brother and friends, not just himself. Think about that.

You make some very good points. Defending his brothers was a noble thing to do. Actually, I don't even see a problem with him defending himself. If I was a believer, I don't think I would have much problem with the image of Joseph Smith as Prophet/Gunslinger. In fact I would think its kind of cool, being a fan of westerns (just kidding)

I don't find things like these post showing much intelligence, just fault finding at its worst and most inefficient.

Well, I did not mean to find fault...though maybe I was taking a little jab at the way Church history is taught (a cleaned up version).

But my main reason for bringing up topics like this is that I tend to be a bit of a perfectionist when it comes to historical accuracy, so when I see things omitted, or exaggerated, the historian in me gets annoyed.

Another example, which I find to be "Mormon Myth" is the artwork of Joseph Smith translating the plates in a scholarly manner at a desk, though historical documentation seems to indicate that he put his seer stone in his hat and the words appeared to him from the darkness of his hat. Not something we see in LDS artwork.

Also, we rarely, if ever, hear about how the plates were covered or hidden, so no one ever saw them except with "spiritual eyes" (they had a strong spiritual sense that the plates were there). I wasn't taught that as an investigator.

So even assuming the average LDS are aware JS had a gun in his prison cell (though I still think most do not)...are they familiar with the information about the seer stone in the hat, and the fact that the witnesses never saw the plates with their physical eyes? I would GUESS that they do not.

For me, the fact that he gazed in to a hat does not tell me there is anything false about his status as a prophet. God works in mysterious ways, and sometimes outright bizarre ways...after all, if Moses talked to a Burning Bush, why can't Joseph Smith read out of his hat? MY issue is that the historical accuracy is being compromised.

On the other hand, as a big fan of mythology, I appreciate artistic license and exaggeration. So I can still see value in a "mythological" depiction of Joseph Smith translating the plates.

So it bothers me and it doesn't...I guess that shows I am a living contradiction...maybe I am "unorthodox" in all things.

[Maureen]

I don't find things like these post showing much intelligence, just fault finding at its worst and most inefficient.

You are allowed your opinion but there is no rule on this board that says all posts must be intelligent. The thread is discussing "false" information passed from member to member - you don't think that's a topic that can be discussed? What's wrong with finding fault in something that's not truthful or honest?

M.

[Outshined]

You are allowed your opinion but there is no rule on this board that says all posts must be intelligent.

Thank goodness; I thought they'd have to shut it down...

[Aristotle]

Edited by Aristotle

[Guest Unorthodox]

<div class='quotemain'>

You are allowed your opinion but there is no rule on this board that says all posts must be intelligent.

Thank goodness; I thought they'd have to shut it down...

LOL!

So true...and I say that as someone who admits to having made some of the stupidest posts in this boards history

[Aristotle]

So true...and I say that as someone who admits to having made some of the stupidest posts in this boards history

For those of us who don't know, are you going to reveal your previous identity? ;-)

[Guest Unorthodox]

I'm keeping that information between me and the moderators to protect my privacy. Thanks :)

[Guest Syble]

<div class='quotemain'>

I don't find things like these post showing much intelligence, just fault finding at its worst and most inefficient.

You are allowed your opinion but there is no rule on this board that says all posts must be intelligent. The thread is discussing "false" information passed from member to member - you don't think that's a topic that can be discussed? What's wrong with finding fault in something that's not truthful or honest?

M.

I was stating an opinion of my own. Do we know when Joseph was editing the book that he wasn't at a desk discussing it with those who were with him as scribes?

He did have to compile the book to be printed. Was his head in the hat then?

I could go on about the other stories and how they could be looked at differently, but it takes pages and pages and I don't have that much time here.

What I will say is this, if anyone had an ounce of positive imagination and could try and see possibilities instead of 'misrepresentations' they might see things that were faith building, and to me that would be the intelligent way to approach these subjects.

[Guest Unorthodox]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

I don't find things like these post showing much intelligence, just fault finding at its worst and most inefficient.

You are allowed your opinion but there is no rule on this board that says all posts must be intelligent. The thread is discussing "false" information passed from member to member - you don't think that's a topic that can be discussed? What's wrong with finding fault in something that's not truthful or honest?

M.

I was stating an opinion of my own. Do we know when Joseph was editing the book that he wasn't at a desk discussing it with those who were with him as scribes?

He did have to compile the book to be printed. Was his head in the hat then?

I could go on about the other stories and how they could be looked at differently, but it takes pages and pages and I don't have that much time here.

What I will say is this, if anyone had an ounce of positive imagination and could try and see possibilities instead of 'misrepresentations' they might see things that were faith building, and to me that would be the intelligent way to approach these subjects.

Those paintings might have represented him studying the material he had finished translating, or browsing through the gold plates before translation. I might be wrong but I think the titles of the paintings refer to a translation?

In any case, I don't have a problem with "mythology" for the purpose of promoting faith. It really doesn't matter HOW he translated the BoM, if you believe in it.

My point is that if you are a believer, then seeing a painting of JS with his face in a hat should not challenge your faith. And reading something about how the witnesses never actually saw the plates with their physical eyes should also not challenge your faith.

So while the myths (faith promoting histories) are nice to make the Church seem more believable, they should not be needed if the members have strong faith.

[Aristotle]

LOL... ok, thanks...I will remember to forget everything I have seen and heard. ;-)

[Guest Unorthodox]

This painting is titled "Translating the Book of Mormon".

Those plates are wide out in the open for the scribe to see, though historical documents indicate that they were always hidden. Also, there is no Urim or Thummim to be found in this picture...or a hat with a seer stone.

I think that at least this painting could be considered "historically inaccurate".

[Ray]

...reading something about how the witnesses never actually saw the plates with their physical eyes should also not challenge your faith.

No, especially when the witnesses who said they saw the plates said they saw them with their physical eyes.

Perhaps you should read the testimonies of the witnesses again... the 'testimony of the 3 witnesses' and the 'testimony of the 8 witnesses' both state they all saw the physical plates with their physical eyes.

[Guest Unorthodox]

<div class='quotemain'>

...reading something about how the witnesses never actually saw the plates with their physical eyes should also not challenge your faith.

No, especially when the witnesses who said they saw the plates said they saw them with their physical eyes.

Perhaps you should read the testimonies of the witnesses again... the 'testimony of the 3 witnesses' and the 'testimony of the 8 witnesses' both state they all saw the physical plates with their physical eyes.

I don't know about the 8 witnesses...but the big 3 said it was spiritual visions, although this contradicted their earlier testimony which is included with the scriptures.

From Wikipedia...

Subsequent history of the Three Witnesses

A monument to the Three Witnesses at Temple Square in Salt Lake City, Utah. Further statements from Martin Harris and David Whitmer explained the nature of their experiences. According to one account, in June 1829, Joseph Smith Jr., Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris retired to the woods to pray to receive a vision of the plates. After some time, it was determined that Harris' presence had prevented the appearance of the angel and so Harris went off a ways from the others. Smith, Cowdery and Whitmer then beheld a vision of the plates. Later that day, Smith and Harris prayed together and Harris claimed to receive a similar vision of the plates.

Although all three witnesses later broke with Smith and were excommunicated from the church, Harris and Whitmer continued to testify of their belief in the Book of Mormon. In the early 1840s, Cowdery became a lawyer in Ohio, and a lawyer associate claimed that Cowdery had privately denied his testimony to him, stating that Cowdery had told him that he didn't believe in angels. Cowdery later stated in a court of law that he did not deny his testimony, but didn't "believe" in angels, rather he "knew" they were real, having seen them. In 1849, Cowdery was re-baptised into the church at Winter Quarters, Nebraska, and he subsequently met with fellow witness David Whitmer in Richmond, Missouri, where he died.

Harris provided the following clarification in an interview:

I never saw the golden plates, only in a visionary or entranced state. I wrote a great deal of the Book of Mormon myself, as Joseph Smith translated or spelled the words out in English. Sometimes the plates would be on a table in the room in which Smith did the translating, covered over with a cloth. I was told by Smith that God would strike him dead if he attempted to look at them, and I believed it. When the time came for the three witnesses to see the plates, Joseph Smith, myself, David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery, went into the woods to pray. When they had engaged in prayer, they failed at the time to see the plates or the angel who should have been on hand to exhibit them. They all believed it was because I was not good enough, or in other words, not sufficiently sanctified. I withdrew. As soon as I had gone away, the three others saw the angel and the plates. In about three days I went into the woods to pray that I might see the plates. While praying I passed into a state of entrancement, and in that state I saw the angel and the plates. (Anthony Metcalf, Ten Years Before the Mast, n.d., microfilm copy, p. 70-71.)

Since the publication of the Book of Mormon, many of its readers have found the statement of the Three Witnesses to be a compelling proof of the work's truthfulness. Bearing one's testimony has subsequently become an important Latter Day Saint practice.

References

An Address To All Believers In Christ - By A Witness to the Divince Authenticity of the Book of Mormon - David Whitmer, Richmond Missouri (reprint of pamphlet)

Liahona, August 30, 1910.

Improvement Era, March 1926.

I cannot be sure if this information is true, or what the eight witnesses experienced. I think we should all honestly study the history to try to find out.

If the scribe was one of the big three, then I assume the painting is inaccurate.

If the scribe was one of the eight, then I withdraw my statement that this painting is part of a "myth".

I'm willing to drop the whole discussion really...

[Ray]

Heh, that's perfectly fine with me. I already know for myself, and I cannot make you believe... but I could give you some reasons to believe, if you really wanted to know.

[Maureen]

I'm willing to drop the whole discussion really...

The whole discussion about myths, whether they're oral or pictorial? Yes, how rude of us posters discussing myths on this thread about myths - how positively unimaginable.

M.

[Guest Unorthodox]

<div class='quotemain'>

I'm willing to drop the whole discussion really...

The whole discussion about myths, whether they're oral or pictorial? Yes, how rude of us posters discussing myths on this thread about myths - how positively unimaginable.

M.

I won't admit to being rude...but I am getting tired of debate. It almost always ends up with me having a headache.

:)

[Guest Syble]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

I don't find things like these post showing much intelligence, just fault finding at its worst and most inefficient.

You are allowed your opinion but there is no rule on this board that says all posts must be intelligent. The thread is discussing "false" information passed from member to member - you don't think that's a topic that can be discussed? What's wrong with finding fault in something that's not truthful or honest?

M.

I was stating an opinion of my own. Do we know when Joseph was editing the book that he wasn't at a desk discussing it with those who were with him as scribes?

He did have to compile the book to be printed. Was his head in the hat then?

I could go on about the other stories and how they could be looked at differently, but it takes pages and pages and I don't have that much time here.

What I will say is this, if anyone had an ounce of positive imagination and could try and see possibilities instead of 'misrepresentations' they might see things that were faith building, and to me that would be the intelligent way to approach these subjects.

Those paintings might have represented him studying the material he had finished translating, or browsing through the gold plates before translation. I might be wrong but I think the titles of the paintings refer to a translation?

In any case, I don't have a problem with "mythology" for the purpose of promoting faith. It really doesn't matter HOW he translated the BoM, if you believe in it.

My point is that if you are a believer, then seeing a painting of JS with his face in a hat should not challenge your faith. And reading something about how the witnesses never actually saw the plates with their physical eyes should also not challenge your faith.

So while the myths (faith promoting histories) are nice to make the Church seem more believable, they should not be needed if the members have strong faith.

Yes you have a problem with all of it and the way you are handling this discussion clearly shows it. Why don't you just say that you want the pictures destroyed and painted waith JS with his face in a hat? We know that he wasn't the one writing the book and who knows who this artist is who decided to paint this nice picture of Joseph at a desk and call it 'translation' as you must know that the painter's name their paintings, the church doesn't.

Yes, I think that would fix your problems just nicely. Change the name of the painting and tell the artist they have no right to give their paintings names.

Oh

~ and while we are at it, lets make sure all of the paintings that depict bibilical stories with angels and wings are also destroyed. Hmmmm that wouldn't be enough would it, we should decide if Christ really had that long of hair or a beard and maybe he has the wrong color eyes.

What right do these folks have putting out such trash that we might become lost and desolate people spiritually>?

[Snow]

Those plates are wide out in the open for the scribe to see, though historical documents indicate that they were always hidden.

No, that's not exactly right. Better put: The historical accounts that we have indicate that while translating the plates were covered or not present. The accounts do not purport to tells us that it was that way and that way only at all times. No statement or statements cover all cases of translation.

Those paintings might have represented him studying the material he had finished translating, or browsing through the gold plates before translation. I might be wrong but I think the titles of the paintings refer to a translation?

In any case, I don't have a problem with "mythology" for the purpose of promoting faith. It really doesn't matter HOW he translated the BoM, if you believe in it.

Your very narrow view of the translation only makes sense if we exclud studying from the process of translation. But why should be do that? What you are referring to is the dictation/transcription process. That is all we know much about, however, Joseph himself tells us that the translation consisted of studying it out and praying about it, (referring to why Oliver failed at translating).

[Aristotle]

Edited by Aristotle

[Maureen]

Another Mormon member myth (say that 3 times real fast) :

If you dring coffee your knees will turn green.

To be fair this is more of a parent to child advice myth. My mom had a few of her own like, if there is a bump on your tongue that means you've told a lie and if you eat the crust on your bread your hair will grow long. And as we get older we are able to determine when a parent or grownup is just teasing with these crazy myths to keep us in check. This myth about coffee and green knees was told to my friend's SS class (back when we were silly teenagers, I happen to be attending that day) by a "Brother" who was teaching the class (Laurel advisor's husband, a very nice guy). He told us that he would tell his children this myth to explain why they don't drink coffee.

M.